And then I have to ask why the headline on this piece is "Poll: 45$ approve of Obama's handling of the economy"? The headline should be "49% of Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy" because that is what the poll found:

As President Barack Obama prepares for the first State of the Union
Address of his second term, one which will primarily be focused on
economic issues, fewer than half of Americans (45 percent) approve of
how he's handling the economy, while more (49 percent) disapprove.

Wednesday, February 13, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq War
he wanted turns profitable for John Podesta, Podesta advises US
President Barack Obama these days and last night Barack gave another
questionable speech, will protesters go to Baghdad, England's Labour
Party takes a step away from Tony Blair's Iraq War, and more.

Felons rejoice, at his company website, Tony Podesta self-boasts,
"Many people in Washington can tell you what just happened to you.
Tony Podesta helps you change outcomes." The company slogan appears to
be -- because it's all over the website -- "we are the podesta group. we
deliver." -- "the trash" must have been left off due to a lack of
space. Or maybe with the Podestas, trash is just implied?

In the second most popular episode of Charlie's Angels, season one's "Consenting Adults" (written by Les Carter), Farrah Fawcett's Jill lays down some basic truth with Laurette Spang's Tracy.

Jill: Okay, let's both stop playing games. For starters,
you can drop the "Tracy." It rhymes with Stacy and Macy and all those
other jive names hookers like to latch onto.

Hookers and
con artists frequently have to change their names -- which one is the
Podesta Group? Wikipedia explains the lobbying group "was founded in
1988 by brothers John Podesta and Tony Podesta and has previously been
known as Podesta Associates, podesta.com and PodestaMatton" or, as it's called in DC, "the Podestaphile." Byron Tau, Anna Palmer and Tarini Parti (POLITICO) reported
this afternoon, "The government of Iraq is in the final stages of
inking a contract with the Podesta Group as its first D.C. lobbying
firm, according to multiple sources." Really? One wonders how the
Iraqi people will feel about that, their government signing with John
Podesta's lobbying firm considering John's Iraq history.

Dropping back to the March 28, 2007 snapshot:Interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner (KPFA's Guns and Butter)
today, professor Francis Boyle discussed how a 2003 exploration of
impeachment by the Democrats was cut short when John Podesta announced
that there would be no introduction of bills of impeachment because it
would harm Democrats chances in the 2004 election. Speaking of the
measures being applauded by much in the media, big and small, Boyle
declared, "It's all baloney. All they had to do was just do nothing and
Bush would have run out of money. . . . The DNC fully supports the
war, that was made clear to Ramsey [Clark] and me on 13 March 2003 and
nothing's changed." John Podesta, former Clintonista, is with the
Democratic talking point mill (that attempts to pass itself as a think
tank) Center for American Progress -- with an emphasis on "Center" and
not "Progress."

Here's David Swanson (in 2009, at Democrats.com) discussing Podesta's role in the Iraq War:Boyle and Ramsey Clark presented the case for impeachment to Democratic
congress members on March 13, 2003, just days before the bombs hit
Baghdad. Impeachment could conceivably have prevented over a million
deaths. The congress members present accepted the validity of the case,
but John Podesta and others argued that it would be better for
Democrats in the next election to let the war happen. We saw this same
cold blooded calculation, of course, in 2007 and 2008, as the Democrats
controlled the Congress and claimed to "oppose" the war while keeping it
going. While Clark argued for the political advantage of pursuing
impeachment, Boyle declined to address that point, preferring to stick
to the facts. Sadly, electoral arguments are almost the only thing most
congress members care about, and human life is not even on the list.

Francis A. Boyle: We just need one person to introduce the bill with
courage, integrity, principles, and of course a safe seat. In Gulf War
one I worked with the late great Congressman Henry B. Gonzales on his
bill of impeachment against Bush Sr. We put that one in. I did the first
draft the day after the war started. So in my opinion there is no
excuse for these bills not to have been put in already. In fact, on 13
March 2003, Congressman John Conyers
convened a meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were
lawyers, to debate putting in immediate bills of impeachment against
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, to head off the war. There were draft bills sitting on the table that had been prepared by
me and Ramsey Clark. And the Congressman invited Ramsey and me to come
in and state the case for impeachment. It was a two hour debate, very
vigorous debate, obviously all of these lawyers there. And most of the
lawyers there didn't disagree with us on the merits of impeachment. It
was more as they saw it a question of practical politics. Namely, John
Podesta was there, Clinton's former White House chief of staff, who
said he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and
they were against putting in immediate bills of impeachment because it
might hurt whoever their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004.
Well at that time no one even knew who their presidential candidate was
going to be in 2004. I didn't argue the point, I'm a political independent. It was not
for me to tell Democrats how to elect their candidates. I just
continued arguing the merits of impeachment. But Ramsey is a lifelong
Democrat and he argued that he felt that putting in these bills of
impeachment might help the Democrats and it certainly wasn't going to
hurt them in 2004.

So when the right thing could have been
done, when the Iraq War could have been stopped before it started, when
everything could have been changed, there was John Podesta arguing to
destroy Iraq, to destroy the lives of the Iraqi people, so that
Democrats could win the 2004 elections? (For the record, the whore was
wrong even when it came to electability: the Dems lost in the 2004
election -- they lost the presidency, the House and the Senate both
remained under Republican control with Republicans increasing their
seats -- in the single digits, but it's an increase -- in both houses of
Congress.)

The Iraqi people are going to see their public
monies go to feather the nest of the Podestas? Oh, thug and prime
minister Nouri al-Maliki may have some fresh problems on his hands.

The
ongoing political crises continue. Fresh off meetings this week with
Ayad Allawi (head of Iraqiya -- the political slate that came in first
in the 2010 elections) and cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr,
Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani met with another
official today. Alsumaria reports
he met with US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft in Erbil where they
discussed the political crises and the issue of the democratic process
in Iraq and that Beecroft supports a national meet-up which would be
what Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi have been calling for since December 21st -- of 2011.

Yesterday there was outrage over the arrest of Imam Mohammad Zaidi. Alsumaria reports
today that the he has been released after being held for a little over
24 hours. His supporters see the arrest as evidence of Nouri's practice
of arbitrary arrests targeting those he sees as political rivals. Mohammed Sabah (Al Mada) reports
State of Law (Nouri's political slate) is insisting that Speaker of
Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi is keeping 30 people from being arrested --
that they have warrants and he won't lift immunity (members of
Parliament cannot be arrested while serving unless their immunity is
lifted). Iraqiya (political slate Osama al-Nujaifi belongs to) responds
that the warrants are an attempt by Nouri to intimidate political
opponents.

Moving over to protests, All Iraq News reports
a new development in Basra where "hundreds" have staged a sit-in
outside a center for the blind. There are said to be as many as 500
people taking part in the sit-in that's calling for the government to
care for the people with special needs (at least 13,000 people in the
province are recognized by the federal government as challenged or
disabled). All Iraq News also reports
that National Alliance MP Jawad Franck is insisting that protesters
elsewhere in Iraq are being supported by 'third parties,' outsiders,
foreigners. More alarmist talk. The reason? Saturday,
protesters in Anbar Province asked for permission to do a sit-in in
Baghdad this Friday. Nouri's been in a tizzy. He's held multiple
meetings with the National Alliance trying to figure out how to stop the
protests. Al Mada reports
Anbar responds today with protesters saying they will go to Baghdad and
take part in morning prayers and that Nouri cannot prevent them from
entering their country's capital, not these residents and tribes of
Anbar who refuse to allow their dignity to be besmirched.

But everything's in a state of flux and Ali Abel Sadah (Al-Monitor) reports that it appears the citizens will not be going to Baghdad to march, attend worship or take part in a sit-in thei Friday:But the widespread deployment of security personnel at the entrances to
Baghdad, alongside security checkpoints near Adhamiya, where the Abu
Hanifa Mosque is located, prompted the protest leadership to retract the
decision to move to Baghdad.
Rafi Taha Rifai, the Sunni Grand Mufti of Iraq, said in a statement obtained by Al-Monitor that the demonstrators’ decision “to go to Baghdad was rejected by the dictatorial authorities."
Rifai called on demonstrators to “postpone the decision to move to Baghdad to an appropriate time.”
Sources close to the leaders of the Anbar demonstrations expected
activists to stay at their traditional place, in the “square of glory
and dignity.”

By the way, who's supporting 'Ba'athists'? Nouri's forever accusing
protesters of being 'terrorists' and 'Ba'athists' and having connections
to Saddam Hussein's regime. For an example of that kind of propaganda, you can refer to this Ahlul Bayt News Agency nonsense.But Al Mada reports
it's Nouri who's paying for the treatment of a Ba'athist in Turkey.
Sheikh Ali Hussein al-Hamadani's medical expenses are being covered by
Nouri (which most likely means the Iraqi people are paying the costs)
and the rumor is that he's doing it to curry favor with tribal leaders
in Anbar in the hopes that they'll call off the protests.

Staying on violence, Saturday there was an attack on Camp Liberty. Prensa Latina reports, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of
Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls
terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an
Iraqi official release." CNN explained,
"The rocket and mortar attack occurred at Camp Hurriya, a onetime U.S.
base formerly known as Camp Liberty, which is now the home of the
Iranian exile group Mujahedin-e-Khalq. Accounts of the number of people
killed and wounded in the attack vary." Amnesty International issued the following:Authorities in Iraq must urgently investigate the attack against a
camp of Iranian exiles that left several people dead and injured and
ensure all those wounded receive appropriate medical care, said Amnesty
International today.The investigation should also look into the
conduct of Iraqi security forces in the lead up and during the attack
and whether they have failed to prevent any such attack.Several
people reportedly died and have been injured as a result of the attack
against Camp Liberty, home of some 3,000 Iranians in exile in Iraq, on 9
February.“The attack against Camp Liberty is a despicable
crime,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International Middle East
and North Africa Programme's Deputy Director. “Authorities in
Iraq must ensure not only that those responsible for this attack are
brought to justice but that those living in the camp are protected.”The
residents of Camp Liberty, members of the People’s Mojahedin
Organization of Iran which opposes the Iranian government, were recently
relocated to a site in north-east Baghdad – after having been settled
for 25 years in Camp Ashraf.Residents claimed the Iraqi forces attacked some of them during the relocation process in 2012.Today
the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' Chief, Antonio Guterres,
stressed that the residents of Camp Liberty are asylum seekers
undergoing refugee status determination process and as such are entitled
to international protection.In April 2011, Iraqi troops stormed
camp Ashraf using grossly excessive force, including live ammunition,
against residents who tried to resist them. Some 36 people ­– 28 men and
eight women – were killed and more than 300 wounded. Those injured were
prevented from leaving the camp to obtain medical treatment.

Yesterday's snapshot
included State Dept's spokesperson Victoria Nuland commenting on Camp
Ashraf residents in full. She insisted that the residents would not be
allowed to return to Camp Ashraf (a position Nouri al-Maliki shares).
She's really not the one to make decisions. The US Committee for Camp
Ashraf Residents is calling for the refugees to be allowed to return to
their original camp which was more protected than Camp Liberty:

The US Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents (USCCAR), on behalf of
hundreds of Iranian-Americans whose loved ones in Iraq’s Camp Liberty
were the target of the Tehran-engineered rocket attack last weekend, has
written to the US Secretary of State John Kerry to urge him to
facilitate the immediate return of Camp Liberty residents to Camp Ashraf
where they are far better protected against such attacks.
Saturday’s cowardly attack, which left seven residents killed and
more than 100 seriously wounded, attests to the fact that this camp is
neither safe nor secure for the residents whom the UN Refugee Agency has
recognized as asylum seekers.In the letter, USCCAR noted that “By all measures, Camp Liberty is a
killing field. It is only half a square kilometers in size, 80 times
smaller than Camp Ashraf. The camp lacks any shelter or high concrete
walls to shield the residents against rocket attacks. The residential
areas are consisted of dilapidated trailers that are crammed next to
each other. The trailers’ aluminum walls provide no protection at all
against rocket shrapnel… In contrast, the sprawling Camp Ashraf has
buildings made from concrete and contains protective shelters.”“We, the families of Iranian dissidents in Camp Liberty and Camp
Ashraf, hold the United States responsible for safety and security of
our loved ones in accordance with its treaty and international
obligations as well as its written guarantees to each and every resident
in 2004 that it will protect them until their final disposition,” the
letter added.Recalling Secretary Kerry’s condemnation of the April 2011 attack on
Camp Ashraf by Iraqi forces as a “massacre” when he was the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Chair, the letter urged Secretary Kerry “to
facilitate the immediate return [of the residents] to Camp Ashraf before
more innocent lives are taken by Tehran and their Iraqi proxies.”Some 3,100 members of Iran’s principal opposition movement, the
Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK) have been living at Camp Liberty, a former
U.S. military base near Baghdad international airport after they left
Camp Ashraf, their home for 26 years, following US and UN assurances
about their safety and security. About one-third of the residents are
women and an equal number are former political prisoners in Iran.

The Iraq Times reports today that the Navy Seal who shot Osama bin Laden revealed to the Spanish press that Metallica's
music was used in the torture of Iraqis up until the group learned of
it and asked that they US military stop using the music because they do
not favor violence. The outlet refers to this Peru.com article -- so if you read Spanish but not Arabic, you can refer to it. 3News adds,
"Interrogators opted for Christian metal group Demon Hunter to replace
Metallica, and they were more than forthcoming about being used to wear
down terror suspects."

Tony Blair left office in disgrace. Ed Miliband is an idiot if he lets
Tony back in. David is the smart brother (I know them both) and, were
he the leader of Labour, he'd be explaining to Tony that he's a
liability. Whether Ed gets the brains to do that or not, Tony Blair is a
joke in England and around the world. There have been repeated
attempts at citizens arrest. He can't escape his War Crimes. He may
escape legal punishment, but he's a joke. Even his 'religion' has
become a joke (specifically, smearing leaves, fecal matter and whatever
else on himself and his wife before they 'procreate' has made for
laughter around the world). Tony didn't just leave in disgrace, he
poisoned the term of his successor Gordon Brown. Tony Blair and his
lies are the reason Labour's no longer in power (the same way that in
the US, the Republicans lost power or why Kevin Rudd's Labor Party --
and now Julia Gillard's Labour Party -- replaced John Howard's
Liberal-Democrats).
Harris is an idiot to fail to see that that every political party in
power in the three countries at the time of the start of the war are no
longer in power.
He's a pompous ass who hurts his own party because what Labour needs to
do is to find a way to make up for their appalling position on Iraq, not
pretend like it doesn't exist. As long as Harris is bitchy, he can
count on Labour continuing to have to struggle and to be out of power.
And tip to Harris, I don't believe a politician ever wins a public
battle when they mock a citizen. In fact, that strikes a lot of people
as unseemly and undignified, it sort of cheapens the office.

Andrew Grice (Independent of London) reports today:Ten years after the Iraq War, Labour will attempt to further distance
itself from a conflict which alienated many voters by warning against
the “ideological” crusade against al-Qa’ida favoured by Mr Blair and Mr
Cameron.The party will say that Mr Cameron risks repeating Mr
Blair’s errors in Mali, where 350 British personnel are supporting the
French military operation.After criticism that it has few
policies, Labour is finally starting to show its hand. Ed Miliband will
make a major speech on Thursday as he defines what his “One Nation
Labour” slogan would mean for economic policy.

Nick Hopkins covers the same story for the Guardian, "Labour
has conceded for the first time that a 'primitive understanding' of the
Islamic world caused some of the problems faced by the west in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and warned David Cameron his response to the terrorist crisis in north
Africa shows he has not learned the painful lessons from those
conflicts." This is a step in the right direction but if Labour wants
to attract voters back to the party, this can only be the first step in a
series of steps.

Pretty word walking? Last night, US
President Barack Obama gave the Constitutionally mandated State of the
Union address. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Budget
Committee. Her office issued the following:

Senator Murray's Statement on President Obama's State of the Union Address

“Tonight the President laid out a robust
agenda for continuing to build a more secure middle class and an economy that
provides opportunity for everyone. He described how by investing in
manufacturing, our infrastructure, new and cleaner forms of energy, our schools,
and the skills of our workers we can create the economic growth needed to put
Americans to work and reduce our deficit responsibly.

“The President also spoke about the core
American ideals of compassion and opportunity that will be so important as we
tackle issues that should unite us, like
finally passing comprehensive immigration reform. And the President delivered
welcome news that more of our troops will be coming home in the coming year. As
they do, it is going to be critical that the Pentagon and the VA do more to work
together to give these brave men and women access to health care, employment
opportunities, and the benefits they have earned to help ease their transition
back into civilian life.

“On the tough fiscal battles ahead, the
President repeatedly stressed the key principle that will be required for us to
make progress: balance. He made it clear that while we absolutely need to tackle
our deficit and debt responsibly, the number one priority right now needs to be
protecting our fragile economic recovery and creating strong middle-class jobs.
This means we need to move quickly to replace the automatic and damaging cuts
from sequestration with a balanced mix of responsible spending cuts and new
revenue from the wealthiest Americans. And it means that any budget plan we put
forward needs to be fair and not call on seniors, our men and women in uniform,
and our most vulnerable to bear the burden of deficit reduction
alone.

“Families in Washington state and
across the nation are hungry for bold solutions to the challenges they see their
families and neighbors confront each day. Tonight the President spoke directly
to them and reassured them that their daily struggles will continue to drive his
agenda. In the months ahead I will be doing the same by laying out a pro-growth
budget that that puts jobs and the middle class
first, tackles the debt and deficit responsibly, calls on the wealthy to pay
their fair share, works for seniors and families, and lays down a strong
foundation for long-term and broad-based economic growth.”

Last night's speech? As CNN's Gloria Borger observed (link is text with video of the speech and response), "In many ways, what we heard tonight is the same old, same old argument." The most important critical observation came from Fred Kaplan (Slate)
who offered it as a parenthetical, "(As for Iraq, it's so forgotten he
didn't even deign to mention it.)" Here's what he had to say on
Afghanistan:Tonight, we stand united in saluting the troops and civilians who
sacrifice every day to protect us. Because of them, we can say with
confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan and
achieve our objective of defeating the core of al Qaeda.
Already, we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women.
This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan
security forces take the lead. Tonight, I can announce that over the
next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from
Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue and by the end of next year,
our war in Afghanistan will be over.
Beyond 2014, America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan
will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change. We're
negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two
missions -- training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country
does not again slip into chaos, and counterterrorism efforts that allow
us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates.

In terms of the drawdown, it's more honest than what he said about
Iraq. And that's allowed the news outlets to be more honest than they
were about Iraq. Devin Dwyer and Jonathan Karl (ABC News) word it this way, "There are currently 66,000 U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan. Obama
has vowed to bring nearly all of them home by the end of next year,
though a small contingent will likely remain to train Afghan forces and
assist counterterrorism operations, officials have said.
" Just like in Iraq, where US service members remain for training and
counterterrorism operations. So, no, it's not really ending. Senator John McCain speaks with Nicholas Ballasy (The Daily Caller -- link is video)
about Iraq, relating it to Afghanistan. I'm giving it a link because it
is on the topic. I'm not transcribing it because I have better things
to do than transcribe lies. This is not about the fact that I disagree
with McCain or that I don't like him -- all of that's long established
here. At any hearing I attend where he speaks, he stands a shot at
being quote -- both to be fair and because he usually is fairly
straightforward in the hearings. In this instance, Ballasy is either
unaware of the reality of the US in Iraq currently or he doesn't care
about truth. I don't know. But McCain does know the truth and he
hedges his responses to tailor to Ballasy. McCain's basic complaint is
that Barack hasn't left a large enough force in Iraq. That's his
opinion, I disagree but have no problem noting that opinion and would
note it without even a "I disagree" (assuming -- possibly incorrectly --
that most reading would already know my position on this topic). But
to go along with Ballasy's notion that all troops left? McCain knows
better than that. I don't have time to transcribe lies. As Cindy Sheehan noted to Abby Martin October 12th of last year on Breaking the Set (RT -- link is video)
with regards to claims of the war being over, "but we both know that
the violence continues and we're still occupying Iraq." FYI, Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox this week
features an interview she did with Abby Martin -- if it's the one in
the video, it's a much longer version and Cindy speaks about failures
within the peace movement -- or about frauds within the peace movement
who were really about an anti-Bush movement. Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) observes of Barack's latest speech:

And appallingly, he defended his drone warfare and assassination
policy. “Where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will
continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the
gravest threat to Americans,” he said. And in the very next sentence, he
had the chutzpah to add: “As we do, we must enlist our values in the
fight.”He said his Administration “has worked tirelessly to forge a durable
legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations.”
But is it “legal” just because he and his Justice Department say it is?He also said, in a bald-faced lie, that “throughout, we have kept
Congress fully informed of our efforts.” Try running that past Sen. Ron
Wyden, who for months has been trying to get his questions answered on
the Administration’s assassination doctrine.

A few quick notes. "Consenting Adults" is the episode of Charlie's Angels which
is better known for Farrah Fawcett's skateboarding. The only more
popular episode was "Angels in Chains" -- when Jill, Kelly (Jaclyn Smith)
and Sabrina (Kate Jackson) went to a women's prison (other prisoners
included Kim Basinger). None of the post-Farrah episodes were ever as
popular as those two. Farrah was a friend and I was speaking to a
mutual friend today who said he'd bet I couldn't find a way to mention
her in the snapshot -- he was wrong. When I told him how I planned to
work her in, he noted that Dick Dinman was a guest in that episode and
he now hosts a radio show in Portland, Main on WMPG entitled DVD Classics Corner on the Air
-- which I promised I'd link to. Dinman played the john that Tracy
sleeps with and sets up for robbery setting the Angels case in motion.
In yesterday's snapshot,
I got Joshua Key's name right at the top and then in the middle called
him "Joshua Long" before going back to Joshua Key. His name is Joshua
Key. I probably was thinking of a friend (Joshua Long) when I was
working on the snapshot (I typed up Joshua's remarks at lunch and
dictated the rest). My apologies. We should cover a hearing in
tomorrow's snapshot -- House Veterans hearing that took place today --
but there's not room to do it today.